PAREKH PLATINUM LTD, MUMBAI v. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

ITSSA 11/MUM/2010 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1119916 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACP1996R
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITSSA 11/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant PAREKH PLATINUM LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 28-02-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 28-02-2012
Next Hearing Date 28-02-2012
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 18-02-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL J.M. AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH A.M. IT(SS)A NO. : 11/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : BP: 1.4.1996 TO 24.3.2002 M/S. PAREKH PLATINUM LTD. 16B SAMHITA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE OFF ANDHERI KURLA ROAD SAFEED POOL MUMBAI-400 072. PAN NO: AAACP 1996 R DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN 6 TH FLOOR M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.C. TEJPAL DATE OF HEARING : 28.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.02.2012 O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM) THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 4.12.2009 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1996 TO 24.9.2002 . THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS RAISED DISPUTES ON SEVERAL GROUNDS. HOWEV ER NO ONE APPEARED TO REPRESENT THE CASE WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING. THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY SENT AN APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNM ENT ON THE GROUND THAT THEIR MANAGING DIRECTOR WAS OUT OF STATION . NO BODY ITA NO. 11/M/10 A.Y.BP-1.4.96 TO 24 .9.02 2 APPEARED TO EXPLAIN THE MATTER. THE ADJOURNMENT AP PLICATION WAS THEREFORE REJECTED. 2. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT ON PAST SIX OCCASIONS WHEN THE AP PEAL HAD BEEN FIXED FOR HEARING THE ASSESSEE ONLY SOUGHT ADJOURN MENT AND DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IT CAN THEREFORE BE REASONABLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY AS HELD BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF B.N. BHATACHARJEE AND ANR. (118 ITR 461) (AT PAGES 477/478). IN SUCH CASES WHERE AN APPELLA NT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF APPEAL COURT/TRIBUNAL H AVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDINGS FOR NON-PROSECUTION AS HEL D BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN CASE OF M/S. CHEMIPOL V S. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO.62/2009. ON THE FACTS OF T HIS CASE WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING TH E APPEAL. WE THEREFORE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMI TTED. 3. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.2.2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R. MITTAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJENDRA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 28.2.2012. JV. ITA NO. 11/M/10 A.Y.BP-1.4.96 TO 24 .9.02 3 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT CONCERNED MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI.